The moral assertion 'One should not kick PH in the testicles' has no truth-value, because 'the wrongness of kicking PH in the testicles' is not a feature of reality that may or may not exist. In the same way, the moral wrongness (or rightness) of eating animals isn't a thing that may or may not exist. Or do you think it is? (Another question you won't address directly, because it inconveniently exposes the fallacy of moral objectivism.)

'rightness' or 'wrongness' is just more of your linguistic prescriptivism. I have no use for those words.

When I ask the question "Is it wrong to kick Peter Holmes in the testicles?" what I am really asking is "Should I kick Peter Holmes in the testicles?".
The answer is yes or no. It's a Boolean!

Remember that while you claim "One should not kick PH in the testicles." has no truth-value. True/false is also a Boolean!

Should we eat animals? Boolean!

No, we shouldn't eat animals because CO2 emissions causes global warming. The "It's wrong to eat animals" is just a weaponized shaming tactic!
By making meat-eating socially unacceptable (e.g 'wrong") we convince people (who can't think for themselves and can't connect the dots between meat-eating and CO2 emissions) into adjusting their meat-eating behavior.

Last edited by Logik on Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

So you can't produce a moral fact and show why it correctly describes a feature of reality. So your moral objectivism is a mistake.

I'm not and have never been a linguistic prescriptivist, you fucking moron. You've been shitting out your conceptual bilge for long enough now. Why not fuck off and troll someone else, someone who may be impressed by your sophomoric pseudo-intellectual masturbation?

You are such a hypocrite! I asked you to provide the example of a fact how long ago? I am still waiting.

The one you gave me "Earth revolves around the Sun" was false....

There's no point rehashing why you're wrong about this. Instead, why don't you provide an example of what you think is a fact - a true factual assertion? Perhaps then I'll see what you're getting at.

If you think there's no such thing as a fact, then that may explain why you now seem to agree there are no such things as moral facts, but only (procedural?) moral truths. But then you have to explain why a moral truth is true and a moral falsehood is false. Just saying it's either true or false gets us nowhere.

Needless to say, I think you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about. But I'm happy to be disabused.

A fact is a linguistic expression that correctly describes a feature of reality, given the way we use the signs involved. For example, if water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen, then the assertion 'water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen' is a fact. Tricky stuff, I know. Now please return the favour by explaining what a moral truth is.

No. what makes a factual assertion (a premise or claim) true or false has nothing to do with logic.

Huh? Are we rejecting logic now?

Not at all. But this is logic 101. Logicians have nothing to say about the truth-value of factual assertions. Logic deals with inferential validity - what constitutes rational arguments. I thought you knew this.

Only if the proposition has a truth-value in the first place. Your assuming this one does begs the question.

So you are saying that "One should not kick Peter Holmes in the testicles" has absolutely no truth-value to you?

Whoa. I've been using 'truth-value' all along in the technical sense, referring to factual assertions being true or false. And I've explained that we also use expressions such as 'this is true' to mean 'I agree with this'.

Interesting.

And now you are asking me to define "truth".

Where here do I ask you to define 'truth'? You don't seem to be reading my words.

You've been appealing to our linguistic practices all along - are you not familiar with how people use the words "truth" and "true"?

It applies to both literal and metaphorical statements. You have never heard people use "true" and "truth" as way of acknowledging good advice? Or agreeing with sentiment?

Of course, and that's not what we mean when we refer to the truth or truth-value of factual assertions.

"What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence."

"That's so true!", exclaimed the impressionable youngster.

Morality aside, I really do want to kick you in the testicles. Because this is probably the 5th time I am asking you to state your criteria by which you evaluate "rightness" and "wrongness"!

I use 'right' and 'wrong' in this context to mean 'correct' and 'incorrect'. Obviously. And that has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness.

You can dodge and weave and prevaricate all you like, but you're not fooling anyone. I don't want to kick you in the testicles. I want you to put up or shut up, go away and troll someone else.